HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 Zoning Ord Off-Street Park & LoadG~~~ OF DU~~2
/// ~
1~~~~~Z STAFFREPORT CITY CLERK
``c~ ~ ~ ~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ^[~0~-02 ~
~LIFOR~
DATE: July 20, 2010 ,
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJEC : UBLIC HEARING: Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Legislative) -
Amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) related to
Shared Parking including a modification to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and
Loading Regulations) PLPA-2010-00015
Report prepared by Marnie R. Waffle, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As part of the 2009/2010 Goals and Objectives, the City Council established goals to review
parking standards and examine the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements to streamline
entitlements for businesses seeking to locate in the City of Dublin. As part of this effort, the City
Council has adopted Zoning Ordinance amendments related to Indoor Recreational Facilities,
Large Family Day Care Homes, Eating and Drinking Establishments, and Outdoor Seating.
Gurrently proposed is an amendment to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations) as it relates to shared parking. Shared parking occurs when two or more uses are
located on the same site and share a parking lot.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public
hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5)
Waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76 (Off-
Street Parking and Loading Regulations) as it relates to shared parking.
ubmitted by:
Community Development
Director
Page 1 of 6 ITEM NO. •~
G:\PA#\2010\PLPA-2010-00015 ZOA Shared Parking\CC 07.20.10\CCSR 07.20.10.doc
DESCRIPTION:
As part of the 2009/2010 Goals and Objectives, the City Council established goals to review
parking standards and examine the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements to streamline
entitlements for businesses seeking to locate in the City of Dublin. On April 20, 2010, Staff
presented an informational report to the City Council on shared parking. The City Council
directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments that would allow shared parking to be
reviewed through the Minor Use Permit process. Amendments are proposed to Chapter 8.76
(Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) as it relates to shared parking to modify the
permitting process from a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Zoning Administrator to a
Minor Use Permit approved by the Community Development Director.
ANALYSIS:
Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
contains parking requirements for all Use Types. When finro or more Use Types are located on
the same site and share a parking lot, the amount of parking required is the sum of each Use
Type. The Zoning Ordinance does not contain a shared parking standard.
When the sum of each Use Type is more than the amount of parking provided on the site,
adjustments or reductions may be granted. These adjustments include compact car
substitution; motorcycle space substitution; off-site parking; parking exceptions (10% reduction);
parking reductions for an individual use; parking reductions for shared parking; and parking
variances. A brief discussion of each type of parking adjustment is included below.
• Compact car substitution is allowed in parking lots with 20 or more parking spaces. It
is commonly used in newer shopping center designs and has the potential to yield
additional parking due to the reduced size requirements of a compact car parking
stall. Up to 35% of the required parking spaces may be provided with compact stalls.
• Motorcycle parking is allowed in parking lots with 40 or more parking spaces. In such
cases, one regular parking space may be replaced with motorcycle parking for every
40 required spaces.
• Off-Site Parking is allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Zoning Administrator when the required number of parking spaces cannot be
provided on the same site as the approved use. This type of Conditional Use Permit
is rarely requested.
• Parking exceptions may be granted by the Community Development Director for up to
10% of the required parking spaces due to unusual design situations.
• A Parking Reduction for an Individual Use is allowed with the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator when the Applicant believes the
number of parking spaces required for their use is not applicable because the use
would function differently than the generic Use Type and associated parking
standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. This type of reduction is rarely
requested.
Page 2 of 6
• A Parking Variance is allowed with the approval of a Variance by the Zoning
Administrator, Planning Commission or City Council for all other requests to deviate
from the required parking standards. This option is rarely, if ever, used as the other
parking exceptions have been found to be adequate to accommodate requests for
parking reductions.
A Parking Reduction for Shared Parking is also allowed with the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator when two or more adjacent Use
Types, by their nature and operating times, would not conflict with one another.
Shared Parking reductions are the most common parking reductions requested and
typically occur in commercial shopping centers or light industrial zoning districts.
This report focuses on shared parking which occurs when two or more Use Types are located
on the same site and share a parking lot.
Shared Parkina
Shared parking occurs any time finro or more Use Types are located on the same site and share
a parking lot such as in a shopping center. As noted above, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance does
not have a parking standard for shared parking and requires that the sum of all Use Types be
provided. However, when the amount of parking provided in a parking lot is less than the
required sum of all Use Types, a request for shared parking can be made.
A shared parking request is subject to review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Zoning Administrator if all of the following conditions are met:
• The Conditional Use Permit findings can be made.
• A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the greatest parking demands of
the participating Use Types and to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency.
• Satisfactory evidence is provided that the Use Types, by their nature and operating
times, will not conflict with each other.
• Overflow parking will not adversely affect any adjacent use.
• Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions or other agreements as may be
deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator are executed to assure that the
required parking spaces provided are maintained and that uses with similar hours
and parking requirements as those uses sharing the parking facilities remain for the
life of the documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements.
Recent Zoning Ordinance amendments modified the approval process for shared parking
requests associated with Indoor Recreational Facilities. Under the new process, the
Community Development Director reviews shared parking through the Minor Use Permit
process. Further discussion on the Minor Use Permit process is provided below.
Page 3 of 6
Conditional Use Permit
As noted above, a shared parking request is currently subject to review and approval of a
Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator. The following is a discussion of the current
Conditional Use Permit process.
In order to determine whether sufficient parking is provided to meet the greatest parking
demands of all Use Types so that there will not be a parking deficiency, a parking study is
conducted and a report prepared by a registered traffic engineer. The traffic engineer evaluates
the nature and operating times of the Use Types affected to determine peak demand periods.
Parking counts are conducted during peak demand periods to determine whether sufficient
parking is available to meet the greatest parking demands of all Use Types and whether
overflow parking would be an adverse impact. The data is presented in the traffic engineer's
report.
Following the completion of the parking study, a public hearing is held before the Zoning
Administrator to determine whether to grant a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking. A
Staff Report is prepared along with a Resolution recommending either approval or denial of the
shared parking request. A public notice is published in the newspaper 10 days prior to the
public hearing and mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300-feet of the project site.
The cost to the Applicant for the City to process a Conditional Use Permit request for shared
parking is a flat fee of $750. This flat fee amount covers approximately 6 hours of Staff time to
process the Conditional Use Permit request. The cost associated with any additional Staff time
is covered by the City. In addition to the application fee, the cost associated with preparing a
parking study is charged to the Applicant. The cost of a shared parking study varies depending
on the scale of the project and the scope of wprk. Typical parking studies could range from
$3,000 - $15,000.
When a shared parking request is associated with a Use Type that is subject to approval of a
Conditional Use Permit, the shared parking request is processed concurrently with the land use
application that is subject to a Conditional Use Permit. However, not all shared parking
requests are associated with conditionally permitted uses. In such cases, while the Use Type is
permitted by-right, a Conditional Use Permit would be required for the shared parking request.
Minor Use Permit
Recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance modified the review and approval process for
shared parking requests when associated with an Indoor Recreational Facility. The following is
a discussion of the current Minor Use Permit process.
Shared parking requests are commonly associated with Indoor Recreational Facilities. Recent
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance established a Staff level approval for shared parking
requests associated with such facilities. These amendments replaced the Conditional Use
Permit process for shared parking with the Minor Use Permit process.
A Minor Use Permit for shared parking for an Indoor Recreational Facility is reviewed by Staff
for compliance with the Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations). A parking
analysis is prepared to evaluate parking demand, the operational characteristics of affected Use
Types, and overflow parking. A public notice is mailed out to all properties within 300-feet of the
Page 4 of 6
project 10 days prior to a decision being made by the Community Development Director. The
Community Development Director's decision is appealable to the Planning Commission.
While the Minor Use Permit process for shared parking does not eliminate the need for a
parking analysis or reduce the cost to the Applicant to perForm such an analysis, the new
process has resulted in faster processing times for Applicants and reduced Staff time in
reviewing and approving requests for shared parking because such requests do not require
preparation of a staff report and Resolution and there is no public hearing.
Shared parking is also commonly requested for uses within shopping centers, office complexes
or industrial areas when the sum total of the parking required exceeds what is available on-site.
Uses which require higher parking ratios such as Commercial Schools and churches tend to be
the most common applicants for shared parking reductions.
Proposed Amendments
The amendments proposed to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) are
limited to section 8.76.050.F, Parking Reductions for Shared Parking (Attachment 1). The
proposed amendments would allow for all shared parking requests to be reviewed and
approved through the Minor Use Permit process using the same process approved for shared
parking related to Indoor Recreational Facilities. This process is a staff level approval and may
be referred to the Planning Commission for review at the discretion of the Community
Development Director.
P/anning Commission Meeting
At the June 15, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. The Planning Commission
deliberated (see Attachment 2) and adopted a Resolution recommending City Council approval
of the proposed amendments (see Attachment 3).
CONCLUSION:
As part of the 2009/2010 Goals and Objectives, the City Council established goals to review
parking standards and examine the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements to streamline
entitlements for businesses seeking to locate in the City of Dublin. Currently proposed are
amendments to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) as it relates to
shared parking.
Recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance allow shared parking to be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director through the Minor Use Permit process when
shared parking is associated with an Indoor Recreational Facility. The Minor Use Permit
process has resulted in faster processing times for the Applicant by replacing the public hearing
process with a staff level approval process.
The proposed amendments to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations)
would allow for all shared parking requests to be processed as a Minor Use Permit subject to
approval by the Community Development Director.
Page 5 of 6
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at
several locations throughout the City. A Public Notice of this hearing was also mailed to those
requesting such notice ten (10) days before the Public Hearing and the Staff Report and
attachments were made available for public review prior to the Public Hearing in accordance with
Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been found to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendments do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76
(Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) as it
relates to shared parking.
2) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, June 15, 2010.
3) Planning Commission Resolution recommending City
Council adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendments to
Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations) as it relates to shared parking.
Page 6 of 6
/~~ ~~
~
ORDINANCE NO. XX -10
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING
REGULATIONS) AS IT RELATES TO SHARED PARKING
PLPA 2010-00015
WHEREAS, as part of the 2009/2010 Goals and Objectives, the City Council established
goa,ls to review parking standards and examine the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements to
streamline entitlements for businesses seeking to locate in the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, as part of this effort, the City Council has adopted Zoning Ordinance
amendments related to Indoor Recreational Facilities, Large Family Day Care Homes, Eating
and Drinking Establishments, and Outdoor Seating; and
WHEREAS, Staff has identified proposed amendments to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to
modify the permit requirements for Parking Reductions for Shared Parking in order to streamline
the application process for these types of requests. The amendment includes a modification to
Chapter 8.76 (Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations); and
WHEREAS, the text amendments are shown in Section 2 of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the
Zoning Ordinance Amendment on June 15, 2010 and adopted Resolution 10-30 recommending
that the City Council approve amendments to Title 8(Zoning Ordinance) of the Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 20,
2010; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve
the Zoning Ordinance Amendment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City
Council finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the Dublin General Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all
said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
~-~ 7-ao-~~
ATTACHMENT 1
Q~ O L/
~
Section 1:
Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"): The City Council declares
this Ordinance to be exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The Section
15061(b)(3) exemption is based on the general rule that CEQA applies only to those projects that
have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of this
Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because the Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the
construction of any building or structure, but rather sets forth the regulations that shall be
followed if and when a parking reduction for shared parking is requested. This Ordinance of itself
has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or
ultimately.
Section 2:
Subsection F of section 8.76.050 of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows, with deletions shown in ~+r~~o~g# and additions shown as underlined.
Section 8.76.050
F. Parking Reductions for Shared Parking. When shared off-street parking is proposed
between two or more adjacent use types, the ~„~^^ ~~mini +r.,~ Communitv
Development Director may grant a reduction in off-street parking requirements (from the
sum of the parking required by each use type) in compliance with Chapter 8.~-A9102,
Seadi~ie~a~ Minor Use Permit. Reductions for shared parking may be granted if the
Communitv Development Director finds each of the followinq standards are met~ a-~epe~
l'ocfi ~iromon~ C. ic rv+o~•
1. The ~.ea~+~ie~a~ Minor Use Permit findings can be made.
2. A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the greatest parking demands
of the participating use types and to ensure that there will not be a parking
deficiency.
3. Satisfactory evidence is provided that the use types, by their natures and operating
times, will not conflict with each other.
4. Overflow parking will not adversely affect any adjacent use.
5. Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements as may
be deemed necessary by the ~~;ng-~,-^~~^,,,~-;~~r Communitv Development
Director are executed to assure that the required parking spaces provided are
maintained and that uses with similar hours and parking requirements as those
uses sharing the parking facilities remain for the life of the documents, covenants,
deed restrictions, or other agreements.
• ~ ,
• , .
Page 2 of 4
~ 3
~-{omnnc~~rofoc~ ~ho fr~lin~~iin`r s+~+nrlr+rr
.....~ ~ ~...~ ~.,.~ ........, .~ ~v ~vn - , ,
lc ~+ro rr~~~•
,
~~f~~Y~f'~17~"\~.
1
.
~imoo ~~iill nr~~ n~nflii.~ ~.ii4h ..
r ~
..h ..~L....
.
. ~
h~ r!-~
~°ni h~i ~
°T°-
~
~"
~E ~
ho !''nmrv~~ ~ i~~i fl ~
~i
m
' n
4
ro ovon~ ~~o~ 4n
c
r
r
rr
. TcT-cr eF~
~T ~_
~~}~et'-tttG ftt~0~ ~
~ ~ ~ u°
°
a "
~
~+nroamor~}o
ua.J. ~ vy~ rt.T7T..T ~tt~J ~ Gt~J ~
c
c
-T ~ttiG ttCti~ ~
-v~~
~
rrron+ ~ho reiJ~ ~n}inn f
Section 3:
Severability. In the event any section or portion of this Ordinance shall be determined invalid or
unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or
portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 4:
Savings Clause. All code provisions, ordinances, and parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this chapter are repealed. The provisions of this chapter, insofar as they are
substantially the same as existing code provisions relating to the same subject matter shall be
construed as restatements and continuations thereof and not as new enactments. With respect,
however, to violations, rights accrued, liabilities accrued, or appeals taken, prior to the effective
date of this ordinance, under any chapter, ordinance, or part of an ordinance shall be deemed to
remain in full force for the purpose of sustaining any proper suit, action, or other proceedings,
with respect to any such violation, right, liability or appeal.
Section 5:
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final
adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least
three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Government
Code of California.
Page 3 of 4
~~~ 1~
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this
17th day of August 2010, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G:IPA#120101PLPA-2010-00015 ZOA Shared ParkinglCC 07.20.101CC ORD 07.20.10.doc
Page 4 of 4
DRAFT DRAFT
r~~.-~~ ~
r~~~Y ~~v`~ ~r a~ '~
~1r' ~ \\4 ~ • • ~
'~'~ '~''" ~~~ Plannin Commzssion Mznutes
~~~. : ~1 g
`~ ~,, ir,c ~R~z
r'9~ f=% Tuesday, June 15, 2010
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, june 15,
2010, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Vice Chair Brown called the
meeting to order at 6:09 p.m.
Present: Vice Chair Brown; Commissioners Schaub, Swalwell, and Wehrenberg; Chris Foss,
Assistant City Manager; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; and
Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Chair King
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm.
Wehrenberg the minutes of the May 11, 2010 were approved. The May 25, 2010 minutes were
not approved because there was no quorum.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -
7.1 Five Year Capital Improvement Program (2010 - 2015) Finding of General Plan
Conformance for Proposed Fiscal Year 2010 - 2011 Projects.
Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub asked how much is left in the economic stability reserve fund.
Mr. Foss answered approximately $4.2-4.3 million would be left in the economic stability fund
after the budget adoption. He continued the budget will be available to the public on Friday,
June 18, 2010.
Cm. Brown referred to the charts on page 10 in the CIP Book and asked if the 9% contribution
from the General Fund for the CIP budget include business and sales taxes.
Mr. Foss answered the chart shows the revenue sources that are being used to fund the
appropriations, and the General Fund is made up of several sources, i.e., sales and property
taxes, hotel taxes, etc. He stated that no specific revenue source other than the General Fund is
cominitted to any of these CIP projects.
2lanning Commission ~une IS, 2010
t~gular 9Keeting '73
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT RAFT
~~ J~~
Cm. Brown asked if there are any more opportunities for ant sources to fund the CIP ro'ec~s. ~
~ P J
Mr. Foss answered that the City is continually looking for grant opportunities especially for the
one time expenditures of Capitol Projects.
Cm. Swalwell asked what the difference is between this year and last year for appropriations
and revenue sources.
Mr. Foss answered the City is approximately $14 million less this year than last year with the
majority based on capital expenditures; Fallon Interchange was in last year's budget and
essentially closed out and a few other projects also closed out.
Cm. Swalwell asked if Mr. Foss felt the difference was not because private development is
down.
Mr. Foss responded that the revenues and impact fees are down because development is down
and the City cannot commit funds for some of the projects in the CIP Book because they are
development funded. He felt the City is seeing a little bit of an upswing in development with
some projects being advanced approximately a year earlier than originally thought. He felt the
biggest concern was that the funds are being taken in now but the real costs are incurred a year
from now for inspections etc., therefore the City has to be careful not to commit funds to capital
projects that the City cannot afford to build if development doesri t continue.
Mr. Foss mentioned the Fallon Sports Park is scheduled to open on July 12~ with a Grand
Opening some time in August or September; the City terminated the contractor for the Heritage
Park project and is trying to find a new contractor to finish the work and hoping to have it
finished in FY 2010-11. The Dublin Sports Grounds will begin a renovation project at the end of
this month for one of the fields on the west side and should have the work completed by spring;
some trees at the Dublin Sports Grounds have died near the Zone 7 Channel and will be
removed; the City is working with Alameda County Auto Auction to finish the deal regarding
the maintenance yard.
Cm. Schaub asked Mr. Foss to explain the chart on Page 1 in regards to the "PRIOR YEARS"
column.
Mr. Foss answered the number represents the total amount of money that has been spent in the
areas listed in "PRIOR YEARS."
Cm. Schaub asked why the amounts fluctuate so much.
Mr. Foss answered the numbers are estimates and some of the costs have gone down through
the years. He continued that due to the unprecedented economic condition the City Council has
directed Staff to take any General Fund monies that would be committed to Capital Projects,
outside of the funds that have already been committed for on-going projects, and take them out.
~1'lanning Commusion ,~une IS, 2010
~gular 9Keeting 74
~ a /~
DRAFT D FT~
Cm. Schaub stated he understood those to be the expenses coming out of the General Fund.
Mr. Foss answered yes; those are General Fund revenues that the City is committing to Capital
projects. He continued that the direction from the City Council has been to use as little General
Fund monies on capital projects as necessary until the economic picture improves.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if $703,000 is the amount of funds the City is looking for in the budget
to complete the Heritage Park project or is that the amount of unfinished work because the
contractor was terminated.
Mr. Foss answered it is the estimated amount to complete the first phase of the project. He
continued at the point the CIP was prepared the contractor had not been terminated so these
costs may be higher as the year goes forward and he felt there could be more litigation costs
unless an agreement can be reached.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated the first phase is the demolition, relocation and purchase furniture, etc.
Cm. Schaub asked how much has been spent on the project so far.
Mr. Foss answered the City has spent $4.2 million so far.
Cm. Schaub asked if the entire project would cost $14 million.
Mr. Foss answered yes that is the estimate.
Cm. Schaub mentioned that the Planning Commission had changed the agreement with Mr.
Seno to receive more funds up front and the City Council did not approve that change.
Mr. Foss stated that the City had an agreement with Mr. Seeno that when the City needed the
funds he would make them available. Mr. Foss continued that even if he paid the entire amount
it would not pay the cost of the next phase. He stated that Mr. Seeno has been a good partner to
the City and the City is hopeful that when the funds are needed he will make them available.
Cm. Schaub asked if there is the possibility of not installing the Silvergate interchange now.
Mr. Foss stated that the Silvergate interchange is a mitigation measure for Schaefer Ranch
project.
Cm. Schaub felt the area was not impacted and the interchange was not needed.
Mr. Foss disagreed and felt the residents in the area had stated at their community meeting that
they would be very impacted. He stated the residents were concerned about increased school
traffic in the morning and the afternoon and adding a signalized intersection with a third lane
will improve the situation and the City is hoping to have the majority of the work finished
before school begins again in the fall.
1'lanning Commission ,~une 1S, 2010
1~gular ryfeeting '75
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Schaub personally felt the area is not impacted at all. ~ ~?
. ~
Cm. Swalwell stated the traffic is especially bad at Amador Valley Blvd. and Brighton and was
happy to see a traffic signal is scheduled to be installed at the intersection. He asked when that
would be completed.
Mr. Foss answered the design will be completed this fiscal year and the City hopes to have it
completed by summer 2011 in advance of school opening in the fall. He continued the project is
being funded by the Eastern Dublin TIF.
Cm. Swalwell asked if there was anything being done currently to reduce the traffic.
Mr. Foss answered the City has nothing planned at this point and the City Council would like to
have it completed by next summer and before school begins again in fa112011.
Cm. Swalwell asked if Mr. Foss was the acting Public Works Director. Mr. Foss answered yes,
until the end of month when the new director will start.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Mr. Foss is finding with economy that CIP bids are coming in lower.
Mr. Foss answered yes.
On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4-0, with Chair
King absent, the Planning Commission approved:
RESOLUTION NO. 10- 29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FINDING CONFORMITY WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECTS PROPOSED TO OCCUR DURING FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 AS PRESENTED IN
THE 2010-2015 CITY OF DUBLIN FNE YEAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 PLPA-2010-00015 Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Amendments to Title 8 of the
Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) related to Shared Parking including a
modification to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations).
Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
~lanning Commusion
,~une 1 S, 2010
1~gularMeeting '](
DRAFT lD~~J
Cm. Swalwell noted that parking exceptions may be granted by the Community Development
Director for up to 10% of the required parking spaces. He asked if anything under 10% the
Director can approve but anything above that the project would automatically go to the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Waffle answered yes; up to 10%, specifically for unusual design situations, the Director can
approve the reduction. She continued all of the other parking reductions currently require a
Conditional Use Permit.
Cm. Swalwell asked if a Conditional Use Permit would come to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Waffle answered a Conditional Use Permit would be approved by the Zoning
Administrator and would only come to the Planning Commission if it is associated with a
project that requires some type of permit that must be approved by the Planning Commission.
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager added that while a parking exception can be granted by the
Director, with a shared parking reduction the Director has the ability to bump it up to the
Planning Commission as a stand alone item. He continued that when the parking exception of
some kind is tied in with a shopping center project it would come before the Planning
Commission.
Cm. Swalwell was unsure when a CUP is heard by the Planning Commission instead of the
Director. He asked what brings a project to the Planning Commission automatically.
Mr. Baker stated that a 10% or less reduction could be granted by the Director as an
administrative process.
Cm. Swalwell asked if that is related to shared parking.
Mr. Baker answered specifically for shared parking the code gives that authority to the Director
to approve, however if it's tied to a project or more appropriate for a public hearing it would go
before the Planning Comrnission.
Cm. Swalwell asked if the CUP is tied with a project would it go before the Planning
Coinmission.
Mr. Baker answered that has been their practice but the code does not require it.
Cm. Swalwell asked if he knew the number of applications that came to the Planning
Commission for a CUP versus being approved at the Zoning Administrator level.
Mr. Baker answered that the only ones that would come to the Plaruung Commission would be
tied to a particular project, for example, the Signature Room at Ulferts Center required a CUP to
operate and included a request for off-site parking. He felt there was only a couple per year
that would come to the Planning Commission.
~Ylanning Commi.ssion ,~une 1S, 2010
~gular Meeting 'J']
DRAFT % ~~ /~ DRAFT
Mr. Baker stated this would follow the same process that was approved for the Indoor
Recreation Facilities and takes a few steps out of the process.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if Staff has processed a lot of Minor Use Permits.
Ms. Waffle stated yes; Staff has had a few Zoning Clearances for Indoor Recreation Facilities
and others that came through the Minor Use Permit process and felt it was working well.
Cm. Schaub felt that a shared parking situation could be tricky unless the businesses are not
successful; if they are then there could be a problem. He was concerned with commercial
business parking spilling over into a residential area and felt that could create a parking
problem.
Mr. Baker responded that this Zoning Amendment would still include the ability to conduct a
parking analysis by a Traffic Engineer.
Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing, and having no one in the audience, closed the
public hearing.
Cm. Swalwell noted that he is glad to hear the process is working and if it moves the process
along he supports it.
On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0 with Chair
King absent, the Planning Commission approved:
RESOLUTION N0.10 - 30
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
TO CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS)
AS IT RELATES TO SHARED PARKING
PLPA-2010-00015
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
1'lanning Commission
,~une 1 S, 2010
~gular 9Keeting 78
DRAFT // ~ ~ ,~ DRAFT
10.2 Mr. Baker stated that there will be no other Planning Commission meetings this month.
He continued the City Council has a special meeting scheduled for June 22 beginning at
5:30 for the budget and then a regular agenda.
10.3 Cm. Schaub stated that at the next City Council meeting on June 22nd all the
recommendations from the Green Task Force will be presented to the Council.
10.4 Mr. Baker stated that the next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for
July 13~ but at the moment there is nothing on the agenda. He stated he would let the
Commission know if the meeting will be canceled. He stated there is a joint City
Council/Planning Commission Study Session regarding the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan on June 29~ with dinner at 5:30p.m. and the meeting will begin at 6:OOp.m. He
stated that the subjects will be Traffic, the Community Benefit Program and to receive
further direction on the plan.
10.5 Cm. Swalwell mentioned there is a State budget meeting being held on Thursday at the
Library beginning at 6:OOp.m.
ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Brown
Vice Chair Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Planning Manager
G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2010 ~ PLANNING COMt~IISSION ~ Planning Commission_20100615-1640_01 cbOca9701ac500.doc
rYlanning Commusion
~une IS, 2010
~guCar~feeting '79
l~ b 13
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 30
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
TO CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS)
AS IT RELATES TO SHARED PARKING
PLPA-2010-00015
WHEREAS, as part of the 2009/2010 Goals and Objectives, the City Council established
goals to review parking standards and examine the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements to
streamline entitlements for businesses seeking to locate in the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, as part of this effort, the City Council has adopted Zoning Ordinance
amendments related to Indoor Recreational Facilities, Large Family Day Care Homes, Eating
and Drinking Establishments, and Outdoor Seating; and
WHEREAS, Staff has identified proposed amendments to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to
modify the permit requirements for Parking Reductions for Shared Parking in order to streamline
the application process for these types of requests. The amendment includes a modification to
Chapter 8.76 (Off Street Parking and Loading); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are set forth in the draft
Ordinance that is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin
General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans; and
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendments do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the proposed Zoning
Ordinance amendments on June 15, 2010, for which proper notice was given in accordance with
California State Law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its June 15, 2010 meeting did hear and use its
independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony
hereinabove set forth.
ATTACHMENT 3
~~ ~ ~~
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT based on the Staff Report analysis the
Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the
proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments as described in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of June 2010 by the following votes:
AYES: Brown, Swalwell, Wehrenberg, Schaub
NOES:
ABSENT: King
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:IPA#120101PLPA-2010-00015 ZOA Shared ParkinglPC 06.15.101PC Reso 06.15.10.DOC
2 of 2